Talk:Public trust

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Cut from article:

Breaches of public trust:

Watergate, corporate accounting scandals, Whitewater, Lewinsky scandal, Iran-contra, Covert military operations

We need a better definition of what "public trust" is, before we can start classifying various things as breaching or violating that trust. Also, most of the examples linked above are controversial in themselves. A clear example would be better, where most people could say yes that public figure or administration betrayed the public trust. An example where roughly half of readres would say no they did the right thing and helped preserve democracy would not be a good example -- except to a partisan. --Uncle Ed 12:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed reference to US constitution. "Public Trust" in ArtVI relates to a legal Trust, i.e. qualification to be a trustee of a public purposes trust. --Chewy m 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Let's worry about preserving the Republic - our constitutional republic - and so-called "democracy" (mob rule) will find its proper place. [User: USLiberty.org ] 15:14, 21 March 2007

---

I find the Caesar example ambiguous, but I'm not experienced enough on Wikipedia edits to be sure what to do about it. Does the writer of that mean that the assassination itself was a violation or that Caesar's assumption of dictator for life is? Chivalry (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move the New Zealand reference to a dsambiguation page[edit]

It looks like a disambiguation page should be set up so that the political article (the main one discussed here) is the default. The disambiguation page could then include the New Zealand reference as well as this one. --Anonyhole (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]